The concept of appropriation and reference images came up, so I am going to attempt to convey my jumbled thoughts on the matter.
I think everyone uses reference images in their work. We are all inspired by something. Even the great painters of old had something to look at while they painted--even if that something was a real person, they were nonetheless referencing some image. I think it is impossible to paint without reference. Even the paintings I do while not looking directly at something come from an image in my head, which inevitably came from an image I actually saw. Now this is not to say that there is no difference between painting from life and painting from a photograph, because there is certainly a difference there. Painting from life leaves the painter with the problem of transforming the three-dimensional world into a two dimensional surface. The photograph inevitably eliminates that difficulty since it is already a two-dimensional image. Photographs also cannot, and do not, move or suffer from changes in lighting, which make painting from them easier--and yet this is precisely the value of photographs. Is it so wrong to use your resources? Vermeer used the new technology of his day--the camera obscura--to create more realistic rendering in his painting, and yet those are considered masterpieces. So what is so different about using a reference photo? Photos, of course, also create their own set of challenges. They can lock the painter into one scene and make it difficult to deviate--to make the picture one's own, rather than just a copy of a photograph. But this can also be a good thing. It pushes the artist to think outside the box, and to create a piece that touches on the unseen, rather that just the seen. As artists today, photos can capture the world for us, so we do not have to worry about painting it--we can be free to paint the deeper feelings and emotions and characteristics of life in a new a unique way. I know in my own paintings, reference photos help me with a pose and give me a guide for proportions, but leave me the freedom to adjust everything to create the mood or the emotion I am looking for.
The issue of the photograph also brings me to the issue of appropriation. What happens when one uses someone else's image in their own, either as reference, or literally incorporated in? As noted earlier, I think every artist does, in a sense, appropriate something in their work. We do not live or create in our own little bubble, so we are influences by the work and the images around us. This is a
good thing; it inspires us and pushes us. I am so intrigued by the whole concept of appropriation. It is a dialogue with the past, and it is pushing the boundaries of what has already been done. Now, I don't think is is ok to simply copy someone else's work; it has to be altered or changed or made one's own somehow. Copyright laws also come into effect here, and I do not understand all of the rules regarding that, so I cannot accurately comment on that aspect of this matter. But I certainly would not want to do something that breaks a law, so one must be careful in this area, I suppose.
Lastly, about the debate over whether something is more valuable, or less valuable, because it is more realistic. I don't think that realism equals value at all. There is value in both realism and abstraction--and the whole gamut in between. To me a piece by Jackson Pollock can take my breath away and touch me and make me think as much as a piece by Caravaggio. They are different, yes, but they are both striking.
I have been experiment with still life paintings lately (hence the image above). It has been a rather frustrating experience. I find still life paintings very uninspiring and I lose all motivation to paint. But I do think it is a rather good exercise technically. So i press onward.
This fall my younger brother hosted a screening of the Invisible Children film "The Rescue." This is the promotional poster I created for that event.
This is one of my favorite spreads thus far. First, I put down a thick, textural layer of gesso. Next, I rubbed black paint on to accent the texture of the gesso. A photo was then glued on and watercolor painted on the photo. The image was printed on an inkjet printer on regular copy paper, so when the watercolor was applied, the ink bled a little and softened the shapes in the photo. The effect was astounding to me and the concept is something I may play with further.
The page on the left is simply the silhouette of a face created with acrylic paint along with pieces of images from magazines and other sources. The page on the right has the images as well, but in this case I used gesso to add texture to the piece. The words are my own thoughts on the day. I have also incorporated duct tape, which is such a fabulous tape in my mind. It can do just about anything, and it visually interesting, at least to me, all at the same time--I love it.
I am really pleased with the way my experiments with acrylic paint came out in this piece. The contrast between the curvilinear yellow forms and the more geometric, rectilinear blue and green forms adds interest. The process of mixing paint and text--meaningful text that relates to my thoughts and feelings about the day--and photographic images, which in this case came from a magazine, is both fascinating and enjoyable to me.
Today I dyed an Easter egg. The way the colors drip and blend until they finally dry is fascinating and beautiful--perhaps even more so than the finished product. I am not sure that this qualifies as painting, or even art at all, but it was extremely enjoyable nonetheless.
I used my hand to create a resist in this piece. I then went back through and adjusted some of the edges, in particular making some areas softer, so there was more variety. The whole process was really enjoyable--painting over my hand and getting rather messy. I don't think I am completely satisfied with the end result, however. I think is needs more value contrast or maybe the addition of another color. Perhaps I will play with it more later.
7
8
